Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[joyspring777]

Of the three intellectual pillars of modern liberalism -- Marx, Darwin, and Freud -- only one is still standing. Marx fell in 1989, along with the Berlin Wall. Freud's demise is more difficult to date; suffice it to say that, by the end of the century, no one, with the possible exception of Woody Allen, took him seriously any more. Darwin, I predict, will suffer a similar fate within the next ten to fifteen years.

That may seem counterintuitive in light of recent legal and public-relations setbacks suffered by critics of Darwinism -- notably a federal judge's decision forbidding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a term for one aspect of the anti-Darwin critique) in Dover, Pa., public schools. But it is a sign of weakness, not strength, when one side in an ostensibly scientific debate resorts to silencing the other. If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?

No, Darwinists are running scared. Even their attempts to declare victory on scientific grounds betray more than a whiff of desperation. Case in point: the year-end edition of the journal Science hailing "evolution in action" as its "Breakthrough of the Year." Among the "dramatic discoveries" said by the magazine to make 2005 "a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," none in itself demonstrates whether evolution proceeds, and they only shed light on how if you first assume that it does.

Here, for instance, is Science editor Donald Kennedy describing "one of my favorites" in this evidentiary explosion: "the European blackcap, a species of warbler that spends the winter in two separate places but then reunites to breed, with birds selecting mates from those who shared the same wintering ground. Assortative mating of this kind can produce a gradual differentiation of the two populations. Biologists have shown that new species can arise because of geographic barriers that separate subpopulations, but the divergent evolution shown in this case could result in new species arising within a single range."

If it seems that the bare facts adduced here don't quite amount to a clear instance of "evolution in action," that's because they don't. At best, they demonstrate what's known as "microevolution" -- modification within a species -- which no anti-Darwinist disputes. What is disputed is "macroevolution," the change of one species into another, which is the central claim of Darwinism. If macroevolution occurs, the "assortative mating" of the European blackcap might help to explain how it works, but it does nothing to prove that it does occur.

The fact is,nothing proves that macroevolution occurs, or ever has occurred. And, at a certain point, the absence of proof, especially where it ought to be abundant, constitutes, if not positive disproof, at least strong reasons for doubt. According to Darwin's theory of descent through gradual modification (by way of random mutation and natural selection), the fossil record should contain near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different "transitional" forms, and even greater numbers of evolutionary dead ends. Despite the best efforts of archaeologists, not even a hint of that has materialized in the fossil record. Instead, what we should not expect to find, according to Darwin's theory, is what we do find: the sudden appearance of innumerable distinct species, as we have in the so-called Cambrian Explosion.

Needless to say, a debate like this can't be settled in the space of a column. Neither, however, can it be settled by shutting out the other side. Darwinists, of course, would have us believe that there is no other side, only a bunch of anti-science religious fanatics who don't deserve to be heard. That approach can succeed, but not for long. As I say, I give them fifteen years, tops.

[VadeRetro]

Funny you would assume that the book would be filled with errors, mispresentations, and outright distortions.

What's funny about that? Experience is a great teacher, after all.

[Havoc]

Hey, if we arrange cars that way can we tell which cars copulated with which to give birth to the edsel? Nice picture. Would be nice for you if it meant anything, it doesn't.

[DoctorMichael]

Go here!!!!!!!!!!!!!...............

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/hollowearth.htm

The Earth is hollow!!!!!!!!!!!

I read it on the Internet therefore it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bible says so too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........

Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

.......and we all know that the Bible is the literal Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets all get together and get this into our Godless Public School System as a viable alternative to what the Godless Geologists profess!!!!!!!!

Who's with me?

[VadeRetro]

Who's with me?

Let's go!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!

[Miss Behave]

There is only One smart enough to be Calculating God.

[Diamond]

There is no theory of evolution, just species Chuck Norris allows to exist.

Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris kills people.

Cordially,

[Beagle8U]

"By refuting the lies of anti-evolution propagandists? How, exactly, does that make *me* the monkey?"

Gee, Don't get your panties in a bunch, I didn't think that post needed a Sarc. tag.

[atlaw]

If you are so convinced of the correctness of your position, [w]hy cut off one side of the debate?

Who's cutting off one side of the debate, and how are "they" accomplishing this feat? You don't seem to be having any trouble posting and re-posting this particular creationist shibboleth, so why not replace it with some substantive support for ID/creationism? Wouldn't that be more productive than standing on the street-corner shouting about how "the man" won't let stand on the street-corner and shout?

[narby]

Massive posts doesn't make you right. I can throw pages of dogma at you as well.

The evidence Ich posted is hardly "dogma". It's evidence that can be cross checked and verified. There are organizations such as DI out there collecting millions of dollars in donations who would dearly *love* to skewer any single piece of evidence posted. But they can't do it in the realm of science, only in the realm of PR spin swallowed by people who aren't trained in the subject.

If you people are so convinced you are right. Why stifle one side of the debate?

If you feel "stifled" by mountains of evidence, I'm sorry. Perhaps that should give you a clue that you're on the wrong side of the debate. There *is* a correct and incorrect side you know.

You're [Ichneumon] ignorant about the facts of your case and you know that you don't have a leg to stand on.

LOL. Pathetic whining.

See? I can be insulting to you too.

Insults, like humor, have no bite unless they have a sliver of truth.

Ichneumon's posts last night were a tour de force. One of the best I've seen.

Bravo....

[darbymcgill]

It is they who redefine a scientist

Gee, really? Where? Be specific. Quote them.

Check the fine print of this oft used post ... ;)

[joyspring777]

The very phrase was put in quotes because it is published in books repeatedly.

There are secular humanist evolutionists who are awaiting just such a thing.

I will retract nothing. Maybe not you...but others of your persuasion.

[joyspring777]

I despise Michael Moore and all his bilge.

I have no bigotries. That is an awful word to use.

[joyspring777]

Clue for the clueless: The majority of "Darwinistic evolutionists" in America are Christians, and it's unlikely they'd be saying anything about the "rotting corpse of Christianity".


The confused souls that they are. Their theology is full of the most gaping holes!

The most vocal darwinistic evolutionists are NOT "christians" as you call them.

May I ask what your definition of "christian" is?

Paul Begala and James Carville throw the term around very loosely. Surveys tell us 85% of Americans are christians. What is their functional definition???

[joyspring777]

If I close my eyes...I can say "insufficient data".

That is still a person who is hiding behind his own hands or eyelids.

[joyspring777]

You said:

Are you sure your Mommy knows about your fooling around on her computer?


Who is pathetic here?? Such childishness on your part exposes you.

[joyspring777]

Why don't you bother to crack open a science journal for a change, instead of gulping down whatever propaganda factory you're currently feeding from?


Most science journals are darwinistic propaganda factories!

[joyspring777]

You would not try, or should not...

because you would be debating a non-scientist.

I was clear in saying I am not a scientist.

My study is in accounting, business, the mortgage industry and international finance.

Of course you would carve me up.

If I chose to make science my career, it would be fair.

However, my non-science background does not keep me from advocating a position for which I have read ample material coupled with admitting my presuppositions of Almighty God...which leads me to be open about my faith.

Evos refuse to disclose their faith in Secular Humanism or what have you.

We all have, somewhere in our hearts and minds, a position on how we got here.

Either Big Bang in general, or specific and special creation.

[HangnJudge]

Nice relativist statement. So it doesn't really matter whether you believe that the sun orbits the earth, or the earth orbits the sun, as all human thought has some "embedded error"?

All viewpoints within the framework of the universe are "relative"

In order to establish an absolute frame of reference
You have to be looking at the universe from the outside in

This is the great debate

If the Universe is the set of points in which we can, in theory, interact
Is the Universe the only meaningful framework for attempting understanding?
in which all viewpoints are "relative"
Or is there a greater viewpoint from external to the Universe
which, by definition, we can't perceive?
But can only infer

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
----- Aristotle

[joyspring777]

I Knew this specific idiot would show up sometime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gag me please!!!! Such foolishness and idiocy disqualifies any rational thought.

I know...he or she believes there is just as much basis for his noodly god as that of Almight God of the Bible.

Such drivel......

[joyspring777]

With the level of thought that goes into some of your responses...you should have added

Nanny nanny boo boo

that appears to be the level you are arguing from.